[aierou]

Just as with Facebook it seems I am guilty until proven innocent. If you want to believe that they intentionally enabled genocide in a foreign country with politics that neither of us could likely begin to understand, then fine. I have been more than clear, and yet you ask for more. How can I offer explanation to the decline of a regime? Is it not obvious that mental health has been in decline for decades? Or that economic inequality is ever-growing? The average lifespan is in decline. Houselessness is on the rise. You balk at genocide? Our government regularly commits genocide on the scale of the holocaust [1] [2] [3], _with intent_.

Who should be held accountable for all of this? Facebook? What a joke. If they are truly guilty, regulators have all the power in the world to hold them accountable.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_19...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples...

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Pana...

[zepto]

> How can I offer explanation to the decline of a regime? Is it not obvious that mental health has been in decline for decades? Or that economic inequality is ever-growing? The average lifespan is in decline. Houselessness is on the rise.

Yes, and Facebook is contributing to the acceleration of those things.

Is that not something you have considered?

[aierou]

No. These problems would certainly exist even if Facebook never did. Like I said, Facebook could be dismantled by regulators today. It won't do anything.

Do you think Facebook or other social media are the main contributors to the acceleration of those things? Why?

[zepto]

Ok, so you deny that Facebook contributes to any problems. Understood.

Can you explain why your account was created in 2014 but was only activated 9 months ago to begin defending Facebook?

[lhorie]

I've no horse in the game, but it sounds like you have a pet hatred towards Facebook, to the extent that you don't seem to realize that there's a difference between "facebook was used as a tool in an undesirable way by people with ill intent" (similar to how Parler was used by a specific segment of the voter base around the last US presidential election) vs the much more farfetched "facebook employees deliberately rigged the system somehow to promote violence in myanman and anyone that could be remotely perceived to be siding with FB must be shilling for it" conspiracy theory. It's an entirely reasonable position to shake one's head at the media's portrayal of a political instability through a interwebz-colored lens, but also dislike what did happen in the FB platform as a result of the simple fact that people involved in the conflict happen to use the internet.

The point your parent poster is making is that sensationalism and the easily outraged tend to ignore the nuance between unintended butterfly effect consequences that are hard to prevent vs deliberate malice by the company itself for its own profit.

It's a good idea to reflect a bit on hatred to see if it's really warranted. It's very easy to think "oh look at all these negative things I heard, facebook should shut down". What's hard is to realize that what you read online and your mental categorization of things doesn't always neatly mirror reality accurately. Nobody thinks we should ban chocolate on the grounds that violent people eat it and the rest of us would still have food even if chocolate was gone; we only get molded to think this way about things like Facebook because of media narratives.